6 ms·

Personally, I've switched to waterfox -which is a fork of an older firefox branch, and it supports addons (at least the ones I use). I'm pretty happy with it,

by rnd0 7y ago

Personally, I've switched to waterfox -which is a fork of an older firefox branch, and it supports addons (at least the ones I use). I'm pretty happy with it, and I'm strongly considering staying with it even after firefox is fixed.

guessbest 7y ago
I've been using Waterfox on Windows for awhile along with the new Firefox, but now I am going to replace the Firefox install with Brave. Best of both worlds.
zapzupnz 7y ago
You'll be several revisions' worth of security patches behind. For an application that is usually one's main means of accessing the rest of the internet, that would be a deal-breaker for me.
- DiseasedBadger 7y ago
  But even more security bugs behind.
  - zapzupnz 7y ago
    Possibly, but I'll take the actively-developed codebase with the eyes of security experts all over it over one with no manpower.
  - rpearl 7y ago
    [citation needed]
- rnd0 7y ago
  In this case, I was more insecure being subjected to advertising networks (and the malware carried on them) because of Firefox's mistake which meant I wasn't able to load ublock origin. I'm also not sure how many of those "security patches" are intended to make my browsing experience safer, or simply meant to implement bizarre policies that might blow up in my face at any time (as this certificate issue has). It's a trade off. I assume (and hope) Firefox will eventually get their act together so I can go back to using it, but if not at least I don't have to jump ship to chrome.
  - eevee 7y ago
    This "bizarre policy" was software signing, which is in fact a security feature. I don't understand what "getting their act together" means here, when you're posting it on an announcement that the problem has already been fixed. Should Firefox proactively remove all security features that risk ever posing some modicum of inconvenience to users? Because that would be... all of them.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      Firefox could allow people to sign their own add-ons. Let's not pretend that the terms "software signing" and "walled garden" are synonymous.
      - eevee 7y ago
        Okay. Now malware addons are signed, and nothing has been accomplished.
        feanaro 7y ago
        In this scenario, malware add-ons would be signed only for that particular Firefox installation. Essentially, I am arguing that Firefox should let you create your own signing key pair (which would be valid only on that single Firefox installation) and sign any add-on using it. It's a large enough hoop that most users would not jump over it, not least because they would not know what they're doing, but it would be there for those who need it and relinquish the central point of failure that is the AMO. The current situation is basically the Secure Boot fiasco all over again.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It's a bad trade off. Every security related bug Firefox fixes is a how to guide for ruining waterfox users day for anywhere from weeks to years. This will grow increasingly challenging if the code bases diverge in order to keep old school add-ons working given that waterfox has virtually no man power.

by rnd0 7y ago

guessbest 7y ago

I've been using Waterfox on Windows for awhile along with the new Firefox, but now I am going to replace the Firefox install with Brave. Best of both worlds.

zapzupnz 7y ago

You'll be several revisions' worth of security patches behind. For an application that is usually one's main means of accessing the rest of the internet, that would be a deal-breaker for me.

DiseasedBadger 7y ago
But even more security bugs behind.
- zapzupnz 7y ago
  Possibly, but I'll take the actively-developed codebase with the eyes of security experts all over it over one with no manpower.
- rpearl 7y ago
  [citation needed]
rnd0 7y ago
In this case, I was more insecure being subjected to advertising networks (and the malware carried on them) because of Firefox's mistake which meant I wasn't able to load ublock origin. I'm also not sure how many of those "security patches" are intended to make my browsing experience safer, or simply meant to implement bizarre policies that might blow up in my face at any time (as this certificate issue has). It's a trade off. I assume (and hope) Firefox will eventually get their act together so I can go back to using it, but if not at least I don't have to jump ship to chrome.
- eevee 7y ago
  This "bizarre policy" was software signing, which is in fact a security feature. I don't understand what "getting their act together" means here, when you're posting it on an announcement that the problem has already been fixed. Should Firefox proactively remove all security features that risk ever posing some modicum of inconvenience to users? Because that would be... all of them.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Firefox could allow people to sign their own add-ons. Let's not pretend that the terms "software signing" and "walled garden" are synonymous.
    - eevee 7y ago
      Okay. Now malware addons are signed, and nothing has been accomplished.
      - feanaro 7y ago
        In this scenario, malware add-ons would be signed only for that particular Firefox installation. Essentially, I am arguing that Firefox should let you create your own signing key pair (which would be valid only on that single Firefox installation) and sign any add-on using it. It's a large enough hoop that most users would not jump over it, not least because they would not know what they're doing, but it would be there for those who need it and relinquish the central point of failure that is the AMO. The current situation is basically the Secure Boot fiasco all over again.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  It's a bad trade off. Every security related bug Firefox fixes is a how to guide for ruining waterfox users day for anywhere from weeks to years. This will grow increasingly challenging if the code bases diverge in order to keep old school add-ons working given that waterfox has virtually no man power.